Sugar Ray Leonard v Marvin Hagler

[wpink1]

Just like a prime hagler toyed with Duran right.....This was in 83, and duran is by no means the boxer, has the speed or movment that a prime Ray had.

For both of you all understanding... Duran was during Hagler prime. I also saw hagler struggle on the undercard of Loenard - Benitez with Vito, and saw bouts during Hagler prime where he did not come out the victor.

I know hagler was a good boxer, not only a brawler, but he fought best when a fighter came directly at him thus allowing that fighter to be there for Hagler awesome counters. If you know boxing, and you study Hagler you will see that he when made to lead, often time lunges and has his weight disproportionatley over his feet, which takes away his power and leave him open to hooks and uppercuts that even that version of Ray was able to hit him with. Duran exposed him too. Again the Druan fight was during Hagler prime, and Duran was not the boxer that Ray leoinard was and this was clearly towards the end of Durans career.

[wpink1]

I suggest you study the sport, or like i have participate in boxing and learn certain important parts about the sport, that allows certain fighters to have ones number even thought the average joe at home who knows nothing about balance, and how a Young ray leonard would turn hagler this way and that way, and if Hagler attempted to box him it would be very ugly night for hagler.

Certain things like angles, how ray in his peak (you never saw this again from ray after his kevin Howard fights) could hit a fighter and at the same time pivot to an angle to where the slower fighter or a has not shot at countering.

Look at a young ray and tell me where a fighter who when Ray wanted to box, and the fighter did not pose tremendous height and reach advantages was able to have some success. Then look at Hagler fights when he was at his peak and tell me where you saw hagler deal with the speed, or a boxer that has what ray has...You saw Hagler struggle twice Antefermo and Duran when dealing with a smaller somewhat fast boxer, who didnt pose much mobility but enough to force hagler away from his brutal straight ahead style.

When You learn the game and not just sit home and drink beer and think that just because a Tyson or Hagler destroyes the world, and beat down fighters that come right at them...hmmm when you realize that there is always a Holyfield for a Tyson, or a Ali for a Liston or Foreman, or a Leonard for Duran or Hagler..boxing is always about styles, and unless the Tyson or Liston or Hagler catches us with the quicker figher and stops him which is always a possibility. But toying with Ray, is a stretch as hagler was not near the BOXER ray was, and in their fight, he met a very far from peak Leoanard, and yes Hagler was not the Hagler of 83 either,but we saw hagler in 83 vs a boxer. Not impressive.

I also say Hagler struggle with a figher that ray had beaten ealier while ray was a welter..that was Geraldo. Hagler won the fight, but it was a good tussle, as Geraldo gave hagler a little bit of movement and boxed him. Geraldo landed some good shots vs Ray but he pretty much got easily beaten...Scores on Leonard Geraold fight ray by 5 points and 3 points.. Remember ray was welter.... Score for Geraldo vs Hagler, hagler by 2-3.4 points....

I think you both need to revisit Hagler!

[wmute]

Just like a prime hagler toyed with Duran right.....This was in 83, and duran is by no means the boxer, has the speed or movment that a prime Ray had.

For both of you all understanding... Duran was during Hagler prime. I also saw hagler struggle on the undercard of Loenard - Benitez with Vito, and saw bouts during Hagler prime where he did not come out the victor.

I know hagler was a good boxer, not only a brawler, but he fought best when a fighter came directly at him thus allowing that fighter to be there for Hagler awesome counters. If you know boxing, and you study Hagler you will see that he when made to lead, often time lunges and has his weight disproportionatley over his feet, which takes away his power and leave him open to hooks and uppercuts that even that version of Ray was able to hit him with. Duran exposed him too. Again the Druan fight was during Hagler prime, and Duran was not the boxer that Ray leoinard was and this was clearly towards the end of Durans career.

The answer to the bold part is "NO": Hagler prime is around 1980.

The answer to the italic part is "PARTIALLY TRUE", but a non issue against a welterweight and in Hagler's youth.

[wmute]

I suggest you study the sport, or like i have participate in boxing and learn certain important parts about the sport, that allows certain fighters to have ones number even thought the average joe at home who knows nothing about balance, and how a Young ray leonard would turn hagler this way and that way, and if Hagler attempted to box him it would be very ugly night for hagler.

Certain things like angles, how ray in his peak (you never saw this again from ray after his kevin Howard fights) could hit a fighter and at the same time pivot to an angle to where the slower fighter or a has not shot at countering.

Look at a young ray and tell me where a fighter who when Ray wanted to box, and the fighter did not pose tremendous height and reach advantages was able to have some success. Then look at Hagler fights when he was at his peak and tell me where you saw hagler deal with the speed, or a boxer that has what ray has...You saw Hagler struggle twice Antefermo and Duran when dealing with a smaller somewhat fast boxer, who didnt pose much mobility but enough to force hagler away from his brutal straight ahead style.

When You learn the game and not just sit home and drink beer and think that just because a Tyson or Hagler destroyes the world, and beat down fighters that come right at them...hmmm when you realize that there is always a Holyfield for a Tyson, or a Ali for a Liston or Foreman, or a Leonard for Duran or Hagler..boxing is always about styles, and unless the Tyson or Liston or Hagler catches us with the quicker figher and stops him which is always a possibility. But toying with Ray, is a stretch as hagler was not near the BOXER ray was, and in their fight, he met a very far from peak Leoanard, and yes Hagler was not the Hagler of 83 either,but we saw hagler in 83 vs a boxer. Not impressive.

Hagler struggled with Antuofermo twice? please...

And I am not going back to the gym because you suggest so... I dont think i forgot everything, I am still young.

You think a welterweight would beat a middleweight by pivoting and staying out of harm's way for 15 rounds? I think the middleweight just need to jab, and not play a game like the first four rounds of the fight that actually happened. And the few (initially, then more and more) times in which Leonard gets caught against the ropes would be enough for Hagler to hurt his body.

And tell me when Ray in his peak had to deal with someone like Hagler please?

[wpink1]

It is always easy to point to an earlier time in ones career and say that was prime because one did not like the performance their fighter had. However it is universally accepted that prime varies but to say hagler prime stopped at age 26 to avoid having to accept that hagler struggle with duran at age 29 which was 2years prior to the fight that he credits and everyone else credits as his best performance.

So since you say 1980 was his prime and where it ends...which diminishes your credibility, please explain his performance vs Geraldo and Anteuofermo the first time they fought. I know that all fighters had issues with other fighters and one can not make too much out of it, as hagler did not lose but he had struggles, which in looking at his performances and pitting his weakness vs Rays strengths I have Ray winning, Roy winning etc..fighters that have speed, movement and will not stand and exchange.

I think you suffer from the Liston syndrome...He got whipped by a loudmouth much smaller fighter in Cassious clay as he used movement and speed...Ray did the same vs Duran,,,he also did if vs hagler the 1st time. If ray elects to stand and fight he suffers a ko, like hearns did.

[wpink1]

Styles...and yes ray would want a larger ring. Ray fought bigger fighters Chavarini, Geraldo, and contrary to many thoughts that only offer excuses for Hagler as not being in prime for their tussle in april of 87, neither was leoanrd. I think that they both slowed down, thus offering a slower version of what we would see had they met in 82-83.

No there is no fighter like Hagler as training and sparring or tune ups never prepare you 100% for that fighter, if so then ray could keep sparring vs Quincy Taylor instead of the real deal.

Make no mistake Hagler is far and away the better Middleweight as I think prime hagler is able to beat fighters at middlewieght that would pose all sorts of problems for Ray,but head to head style vs style I see ray beating Hagler.

I ask you look at this. Study Hagler vs Anteufermo the first fight, then hagler vs Duran. He takes sooooooo long to get his punch off when he has to lead. When he counters he is much much more effective. Also, study his feet everytime he fought the older version of ray that he planted to punch ray simply used a lateral movement side to side to force hagler to have to reset, and his speed and quickness allowed him to slip out by the tiem Hagler punched,,which (look for yourself) resulted in Hagler appearing slower because he was throwing longer punches as ray was not right in front of him and since ray was able to move in and out (hagler even commented on this he had a hard time catching him and became frusterated as did Duran in the 2nd fight and wanted ray to stand and fight him like a man...sound familiar?).. Look at the fight and watch a how many times Hagle appeared to be lunging wildly and missing wide open targets... Ray had something to do with that. And this was a fighter who moved up, which slows you down, and had not fought but once in 5 years.....

[Tuggers1986]

haha.

What have I started?

[wpink1]

Great Debat.e Wmute seems to be knowlgable about the sport and I enjoy debating him. I just like to dig deeper than simply this fighter hits harder and is bigger so he wins.

One thing history has tought us, is that is not the case. Styles makes fights.

[Steak]

truth be told, most of Leonard's best shots were below the belt and after the bell. He put a good fight no doubt, but a good majority of the time his punches werent doing anything compared to Haglers...

I remember in the 3rd round or so, Leonard did one of those wind up bolo punches he liked to do, and hit Haglers leg. When you hit someone's leg, it might be below the belt...But the crowd went wild for it.

I would say Hagler's best was 1981. Its too bad that he was robbed of that first fight with Vito, cause he could have had more title fights during that time. I actually was fortunate enough to see it, it was on Versus on night, it was actually a really good fight where Hagler won very widely, but Vito was fighting back.

[wpink1]

I had hagler winning vs antefurmo too but he struggled! Which is the basis for this debate as my friendly foe is saying Hagler whips the matt with a prime Ray diuring his prime years. As for ray hitting after the bell, he did this several times. I tell you Ray that nght was not near the ray of old. I am shocked people even give him credit for great performance. What it was was a great based on all the variables but he had no legs after round seven. Inside a simple left hook would have dropped him and you see him winded and leaning back from punches, had anyone else been there that night Ray would have been dropped as it was painful for me to see all the mistake that he made but Hagler did not capitlize. Trust me a young ray has his legs for the entire fight, punches are much harder (not hurting hagler but not pitty pat either), movement much more crisp...